DOUGLAS TIMOTHY TEN BROECK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A conviction will not be reversed for a violation of a procedural rule unless the record shows the noncompliance resulted in prejudice to the defendant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred by accepting the ple…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant seeks reversal of his conviction, entered pursuant to a plea of guilty, for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and a four-year sentence thereon. The sole ground for reversal is that the trial court erred in accepting defendant’s plea of guilty without determining that there was a factual basis for the plea as required by Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j).
Violation of a procedural rule does not call for reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
A defendant has the burden of proving prejudice or manifest injustice. Defendant here does not contend nor does the record show that he was prejudiced or manifest injustice resulted.
The record presented to us clearly reflects :
1. defendant voluntarily entered the plea;
2. defendant understood the consequences ;
3. pursuant to plea bargaining, the trial court agreed to and did impose a four-year sentence though the maximum penalty was five years.
Affirmed on authority of Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)…CA 1981) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220); Cannon v. State, 317 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(j)); Broeck v. State, 317 So. 2d 100, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(j)); Vena v. State, 295 So. 2d 720, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1975); Pizzo v. State, 289 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (…
-
Panno v. State, 517 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…is showing of prejudice or manifest injustice. Florida cases in which failure to explore the factual basis for the guilty plea is charged provide this principle. See, e.g., Cannon v. State, 317 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); [Ten] Broeck v. State, 317 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We hold the same principle must apply where the incorrect maximum sentence was stated to the defendant, and where the defendant is appealing the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea years after, rather than timely appealing…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)